Biodiversity laws around the world differ, but, at their core, these laws promote the fundamental objective of preventing environmental decline and species extinctions. A variety of legal mechanisms have been implemented in domestic laws around the world to achieve this objective, including protection for habitat, environmental impact assessments and threatened species recovery plans. In many jurisdictions, if these mechanisms fail to protect a species, it may be legally declared extinct, or added to a formal list of those that have been lost. This article examines the conservation purpose and legal implications for laws about extinction. A legal power to recognise a species as extinct has the potential to foster ambition, transparency and rigorous measurement of progress against conservation goals. However, in practice, efforts to prevent extinction are applied selectively. Without an obligation to learn from extinctions, recognition of species extinctions in law may have perverse effects, or no effect at all. This article proposes a conceptual model for the role of law in relation to extinctions, highlighting opportunities to improve legal frameworks to achieve more productive and positive conservation outcomes, even as climate change and other pressures drive many more species towards extinction.

Predicting whether a species is likely to go extinct (or not) is one of the fundamental objectives of conservation biology, and extinction risk classifications have become an essential tool for conservation policy, planning and research. This sort of prediction is feasible because the extinction processes follow a familiar pattern of population decline, range collapse and fragmentation, and, finally, extirpation of sub-populations through a combination of genetic, demographic and environmental stochasticity. Though less well understood and rarely quantified, the way in which science and society respond to population decline, extirpation and species extinction can also have a profound influence, either negative or positive, on whether a species goes extinct. For example, species that are highly sought after by collectors and hobbyists can become more desirable and valuable as they become rarer, leading to increased demand and greater incentives for illegal trade – known as the anthropogenic Allee effect. Conversely, species that are strongly linked to cultural identity are more likely to benefit from sustainable management, high public support for conservation actions and fund-raising, and, by extension, may be partially safeguarded from extinction. More generally, human responses to impending extinctions are extremely complex, are highly dependent on cultural and socioeconomic context, and have typically been far less studied than the ecological and genetic aspects of extinction. Here, we identify and discuss biocultural aspects of extinction and outline how recent advances in our ability to measure and monitor cultural trends with big data are, despite their intrinsic limitations and biases, providing new opportunities for incorporating biocultural factors into extinction risk assessment.

This review provides an overview of the ethics of extinctions with a focus on the Western analytical environmental ethics literature. It thereby gives special attention to the possible philosophical grounds for Michael Soulé’s assertion that the untimely ‘extinction of populations and species is bad’. Illustrating such debates in environmental ethics, the guiding question for this review concerns why – or when – anthropogenic extinctions are bad or wrong, which also includes the question of when that might not be the case (i.e. which extinctions are even desirable). After providing an explanation of the disciplinary perspective taken (section “Introduction”), the concept of extinction and its history within that literature are introduced (section “Understanding extinction”). Then, in section “Why (or when) might anthropogenic extinctions be morally problematic?”, different reasons for why anthropogenic extinctions might be morally problematic are presented based on the loss of species’ value, harm to nonhuman individuals, the loss of valuable biological variety and duties to future generations. This section concludes by also considering cases where anthropogenic extinctions might be justified. Section “How to respond to extinctions?” then addresses a selection of topics concerning risks and de-extinction technologies. Finally, the section on “Extinction studies” introduces other viewpoints on the ethics of extinction from the extinction studies literature, followed by the “Conclusion”.

Many marine fish species are experiencing population declines, but their extinction risk profiles are largely understudied in comparison to their terrestrial vertebrate counterparts. Selective extinction of marine fish species may result in rapid alteration of the structure and function of ocean ecosystems. In this study, we compiled an ecological trait dataset for 8,185 species of marine ray-finned fishes (class Actinopterygii) from FishBase and used phylogenetic generalized linear models to examine which ecological traits are associated with increased extinction risk, based on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List. We also assessed which threat types may be driving these species toward greater extinction risk and whether threatened species face a greater average number of threat types than non-threatened species. We found that larger body size and/or fishes with life histories involving movement between marine, brackish, and freshwater environments are associated with elevated extinction risk. Commercial harvesting threatens the greatest number of species, followed by pollution, development, and then climate change. We also found that threatened species, on average, face a significantly greater number of threat types than non-threatened species. These results can be used by resource managers to help address the heightened extinction risk patterns we found.